Naturalism - Atheist Nexus2018-02-22T05:07:19Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/naturalism?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2055182&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIn other words, I doubt each…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-21:2182797:Comment:20577142012-09-21T15:29:15.297ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<div class="description" id="desc_2182797Comment2057627"><div class="xg_user_generated"><blockquote><p>In other words, I doubt each of us have any more to say to each other that would add any value to this topic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>That may be the one correct conclusion you've made. You've tried to make an argument against free will, but it has been weakly expressed and when challenged on particular statements you have been unable to support them. You think the case is clear, but if…</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="description" id="desc_2182797Comment2057627"><div class="xg_user_generated"><blockquote><p>In other words, I doubt each of us have any more to say to each other that would add any value to this topic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>That may be the one correct conclusion you've made. You've tried to make an argument against free will, but it has been weakly expressed and when challenged on particular statements you have been unable to support them. You think the case is clear, but if it is so clear you ought to be able to make clear arguments for it and answer the challenges. In your frustration you resort to ad hominem arguments and make a silly claim that I imposed determinism on you. None of this inspires any confidence that there is substance to your awkwardly expressed ideas.</p>
</div>
</div> That statement is incoherent…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20576272012-09-20T20:38:34.407ZJonathan Changhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JonathanChang
<blockquote><p>That statement is incoherent as it stands. If physical phenomena are undetermined, they are not determined by prior facts or anything else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br></br>Either you:</p>
<ol>
<li>Have a longstanding problem differentiating multiple definitions of the same word.</li>
<li>Think that all electrons exist in a vacuum unaffected and uncaused by anything else; the Big Bang never had any effect on any particle matter. This would rule out the formation of…</li>
</ol>
<blockquote><p>That statement is incoherent as it stands. If physical phenomena are undetermined, they are not determined by prior facts or anything else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>Either you:</p>
<ol>
<li>Have a longstanding problem differentiating multiple definitions of the same word.</li>
<li>Think that all electrons exist in a vacuum unaffected and uncaused by anything else; the Big Bang never had any effect on any particle matter. This would rule out the formation of molecules</li>
</ol>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>That does not seem to be the case. As far as I can determine, you yourself were first to use the word <em>determinism</em> in your response to my question</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I did use "determinism" there, didn't I? I said that the apparent volition of one clenching his fist can be consistent with determinism. I did not say determinism constitutes my entire position, which would have contradicted my first post. The next time "determinism" was used was here (in retrospect, strangely concluded):</p>
<blockquote><p>All this is predicated on an original assumption of materialism and a consequent deduction of determinism</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And here...</p>
<blockquote><p>It follows that you only think you believe in materialism and determinism</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>I am quite honestly losing my patience from your argument in semantics of a word that has ultimately no bearing on the original topic, and your passive aggressive denial of arguing for free will, when you've made your position incredibly clear in the first post:</p>
<blockquote><p>Rather than describe free will as an illusion, it might be more accurate to call it an epiphenomenon or emergent effect... It's far from clear that mental phenomena cannot cause physical phenomena...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And in following posts:</p>
<blockquote><p>It seems quite likely that [physical states of neurons] will remain difficult to observe. This essential connection is merely a supposition, not an observable fact.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>If a purely mental action of thinking about moving a cursor can cause a physical action of moving a cursor, how then can you distinguish mental and physical actions so clearly that you can be absolutely sure mental actions do not cause physical changes in the brain?</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>It is clear, from these above examples, and more, that you are arguing from a position that free will does exist in some physical emergent form. You use many of these assumptions to contradict my arguments. Yet, then pressed, you change your tune and hide behind a wall of dishonesty whereby you disown your own positions, making it hard for me to address the actual motivations and assumptions behind your arguments. Example:</p>
<blockquote><p>You interpret challenges to your arguments for determinism as arguments for free will. They are not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>This has persisted through</p>
<ul>
<li>rational beings vs rational thoughts</li>
<li>argument against naturalism by saying that there's no reason to trust in subjective interpretations of perception</li>
<li>randomness of indeterminacy</li>
<li>and now, the definition of "indetermined"</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>Each point I addressed was subsequently ignored by you as you continued to contradict my arguments based on those preconceived notions as if nothing I said even registered.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The argument against naturalism, which you probably unwittingly made (you made the point, rephrased, if free will is an illusion, then thinking is an illusion, then perception cannot be trusted), is ironically a common argument used by Christians against atheists. (i.e. If God is not real and humans evolved from statistical process of evolution, then thinking is an illusion, then perception cannot be trusted.) When I called you out on it, you only demurred, saying that was not your position, and provided no further defense. Yet you still believe that one cannot logically lack free will and still produce objectively verifiable ideas or arguments.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The randomness of indeterminacy, which I requested you address numerous times have been met with red herrings such as Laplace's Demon or Wolfram's cellular automata.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here are 2 "consequence arguments" against the compatibility of Wolfram's automata and free will (it was originally made by Trenton Merricks against compatibility of QI and free will; it is applicable against both):</p>
<blockquote><ol>
<li>Humans have no choice about the following truth: every action a human performs is entailed by what the distant past was like and the nature of the laws of nature.</li>
<li>Humans have no choice about what the distant past was like or the nature of the laws of nature.</li>
<li>Therefore, humans have no choice about what actions they perform.</li>
<li>Humans have no choice about the following truth: every action a human performs supervenes on what the agent's constituent atoms do or are like.</li>
<li>Humans have no choice about what their constituent atoms do or are like.</li>
<li>Therefore, humans have no choice about what actions they perform.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Yet you still assume that quantum indeterminacy is not chance-based, and presumably, either quantum indeterminacy can be rationally controlled, or the whole quantum indeterminacy thing is just another red herring.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In other words, I doubt each of us have any more to say to each other that would add any value to this topic.</p> All physical phenomena are de…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20572902012-09-20T16:04:24.535ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<blockquote><p>All physical phenomena are determined by prior facts, even if they are in an indetermined state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That statement is incoherent as it stands. If physical phenomena are undetermined, they are not determined by prior facts or anything else.</p>
<blockquote><p></p>
<p>If you think I am denying QI, then you need to re-read all my posts, starting from the first one. You are arguing with a straw man.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you insist that all physical phenomena are…</p>
<blockquote><p>All physical phenomena are determined by prior facts, even if they are in an indetermined state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That statement is incoherent as it stands. If physical phenomena are undetermined, they are not determined by prior facts or anything else.</p>
<blockquote><p></p>
<p>If you think I am denying QI, then you need to re-read all my posts, starting from the first one. You are arguing with a straw man.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you insist that all physical phenomena are determined—even those that are undetermined—I see no other conclusion possible.</p>
<blockquote><p></p>
<p>I did not use the word "determinism" until you imposed it on me, and I mistakenly accepted it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That does not seem to be the case. As far as I can determine, you yourself were first to use the word <em>determinism</em> in your response to my question about obeying commands.:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Me: If someone asks you to clench your fist five times and no more, you are able to do so without the least difficulty or you may refuse to follow the request. How does that work?</p>
<p><strong>You: Let's see how this would work and remain consistent with determinism.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong><br/></strong>It is absurd to claim that I imposed the use of the word <em>determinism</em> on you, when it was your own free choice to use it first.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p> I've always allowed for quant…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20574242012-09-20T05:43:47.140ZJonathan Changhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JonathanChang
<p>I've always allowed for quantum indeterminacy, even in my initial response some 10 posts ago. I've since abandoned my "thought experiment" because of this awkwardly worded exception for a more generalized approach that gives as much weight to indeterminacy as determinacy. If you think I am denying QI, then you need to re-read all my posts, starting from the first one. You are arguing with a straw man.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Suppose the unsolved equation "1 + 1 = x". All of the following statements…</p>
<p>I've always allowed for quantum indeterminacy, even in my initial response some 10 posts ago. I've since abandoned my "thought experiment" because of this awkwardly worded exception for a more generalized approach that gives as much weight to indeterminacy as determinacy. If you think I am denying QI, then you need to re-read all my posts, starting from the first one. You are arguing with a straw man.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Suppose the unsolved equation "1 + 1 = x". All of the following statements about it will be true because they use different definitions of the same base word:</p>
<ul>
<li>x is determined by 1 + 1</li>
<li>x is indetermined</li>
<li>x is determinable because 1 + 1 leaves no indefinite terms</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>Notice the first 2 points are not contradictory. All physical phenomena are determined by prior facts, even if they are in an indetermined state. That electron, even if you don't know its motion, has not been in the same motion or position since the beginning of the universe; it is affected by interaction with other particles; and did not just spontaneously come into existence upon observance <em>uncaused</em>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regardless of the semantics of indeterminacy, quantum indeterminacy (as with all indeterminacy) by definition involves chance, despite your unsupported contradictions.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am arguing for the lack of free will rather than for determinism. I did not use the word "determinism" until you imposed it on me, and I mistakenly accepted it. From the first post I made in this thread, it should have been clear that my position is that lack of free will is true whether determinism or indeterminism is true.</p> If you say that all physical…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20573282012-09-20T05:01:37.157ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<p>If you say that all physical phenomena are determined, you certainly are denying quantum indeterminacy—the motion of an electron is a physical phenomenon and is not completely determined.</p>
<p>Again you assume I am trying to make an argument for free will, when I am merely questioning the faulty "thought experiment" you gave as a proof of determinism.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If you say that all physical phenomena are determined, you certainly are denying quantum indeterminacy—the motion of an electron is a physical phenomenon and is not completely determined.</p>
<p>Again you assume I am trying to make an argument for free will, when I am merely questioning the faulty "thought experiment" you gave as a proof of determinism.</p>
<p></p> Quantum indeterminacy describ…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20573242012-09-20T03:49:30.388ZJonathan Changhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JonathanChang
<p>Quantum indeterminacy describes an indeterminable outcome. You could take a quote out of context and say, because some value described by QI is indetermined at some given time, then it would seem as if I'm dismissing QI by saying all physical phenomena are "determined". This is disingenuous because, in the context of Wolfram, his cellular automata are determined by his rules, but are indeterminable, as your previous argument went. <strong>Determined</strong> means, then, "<em>caused by a…</em></p>
<p>Quantum indeterminacy describes an indeterminable outcome. You could take a quote out of context and say, because some value described by QI is indetermined at some given time, then it would seem as if I'm dismissing QI by saying all physical phenomena are "determined". This is disingenuous because, in the context of Wolfram, his cellular automata are determined by his rules, but are indeterminable, as your previous argument went. <strong>Determined</strong> means, then, "<em>caused by a prior state or function</em>", not "has a definite value." The distinction is superfluous because all physical phenomena have exists from a prior state or function, even if it is not determinable at any given moment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>You seem to be very confused. QI does nothing for the argument of free will, as I have detailed over and over -- because you simply can't deny the fact that QI involves chance and a degree of randomness, and the fact that a value is indetermined at some given time is immaterial to the fact that the outcome still requires chance over possible values.</p>
<p></p>
<p>You have been trying to disprove an argument for the lack of free will by arguing over the semantics of "indetermined", which ultimately has nothing to do with the argument whatsoever.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There's a very simple way to attack the logic itself and that is to <strong>show how an indeterminable outcome does not involve chance.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Wolfram, or any imaginary numbers, are very much determined by the rules and parameters that define the initial condition. If you use the same rule twice, you will get the same result, even if future results seem unpredictable against prior results.</p> These distinctions are superf…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-20:2182797:Comment:20570162012-09-20T02:48:46.196ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<blockquote><p>These distinctions are superfluous. All physical phenomena are determined,</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Come now, you know better than that. Quantum indeterminacy is a fact—you can't dismiss it with a wave of your hand.</p>
<blockquote><p>These distinctions are superfluous. All physical phenomena are determined,</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Come now, you know better than that. Quantum indeterminacy is a fact—you can't dismiss it with a wave of your hand.</p> That's fine as a definition,…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-19:2182797:Comment:20567662012-09-19T22:25:07.679ZJonathan Changhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JonathanChang
<blockquote><p>That's fine as a definition, but then you go on to contradict it by saying:</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To contradict means to say x = not x. x = x would be a restatement. If it is acceptable for the definition of <em>determinable</em> to be:</p>
<blockquote><p>we could predict the outcome with prior knowledge</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...then the definition of <em>indeterminable</em> being:</p>
<blockquote><p>we could <strong>not</strong> deduce an outcome with prior…</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>That's fine as a definition, but then you go on to contradict it by saying:</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To contradict means to say x = not x. x = x would be a restatement. If it is acceptable for the definition of <em>determinable</em> to be:</p>
<blockquote><p>we could predict the outcome with prior knowledge</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...then the definition of <em>indeterminable</em> being:</p>
<blockquote><p>we could <strong>not</strong> deduce an outcome with prior knowledge</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... is the opposite, as determinable and indeterminable are opposites. This is a practical restatement, not a contradiction.</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Outcomes may be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">determined</span> (as pure phenomena) without being <span style="text-decoration: underline;">determinable</span> (involving an observer and predictability).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These distinctions are superfluous. All physical phenomena are determined, and so we are only interested in whether the outcome is determinable. If an observer with all pertinent prior knowledge of the phenomena could predict an outcome, then it is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>determinable</em></span>, otherwise it is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>indeterminable</em></span>.</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>A good counter-example are Steven Wolfram's finite automata, where a simple set of rules produces, after many iterations, quite complex and unpredictable behavior. Outcomes are indeterminable from the rules, but not at all "chance-based."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wolfram's seemingly random patterns are indeterminable only if you consider the adjacent cells as a series, but they are totally determinable if you know the rules and parameters used to propagate them. An example is the number <span class="st">π</span>(pi) which has seemingly random and unpredictable digits, yet, since we know it is <span class="st">π</span>, the nth digit could be calculated.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regardless of Wolfram, if there were such thing as a determined but indeterminable outcome (or that any of a set of possible outcomes could arise from the same conditions), that would by definition require chance, for any outcome depends on some fixed logic would be determinable from that logic (tautology because it's self-evident).</p>
<p></p>
<p>We could draw our little plot of outcome possibilities as such:</p>
<ul>
<li>Determined and determinable - no possible alternative = no free will</li>
<li>Determined and undeterminable - a set of possible alternatives that must require chance, therefore no free will</li>
<li>Undetermined and determinable - impossible, must require God</li>
<li>Undetermined and undeterminable - impossible, must be completely random/chaotic, inconceivable</li>
</ul> It is the methodology of scie…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-19:2182797:Comment:20568402012-09-19T19:48:03.568ZRichard Lawrencehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/RichLawrence
<p>It is the methodology of science as well which is our most effective knowledge system to date.</p>
<p>It is the methodology of science as well which is our most effective knowledge system to date.</p> A system, if we consider the…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-09-19:2182797:Comment:20568392012-09-19T19:43:39.035ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<blockquote><p>A system, if we consider the overall system, is said to be determinable if we could predict the outcome with prior knowledge, or indeterminable if we couldn't.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>That's fine as a definition, but then you go on to contradict it by saying:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Being indeterminable merely means that we could not deduce an outcome with prior knowledge, making the outcome chance-based.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>A good counter-example are Steven…</p>
<blockquote><p>A system, if we consider the overall system, is said to be determinable if we could predict the outcome with prior knowledge, or indeterminable if we couldn't.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>That's fine as a definition, but then you go on to contradict it by saying:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Being indeterminable merely means that we could not deduce an outcome with prior knowledge, making the outcome chance-based.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>A good counter-example are Steven Wolfram's finite automata, where a simple set of rules produces, after many iterations, quite complex and unpredictable behavior. Outcomes are indeterminable from the rules, but not at all "chance-based."</p>
<p>Again, it is wrong to equate <em>indeterminable</em> with <em>chance-based.</em> Outcomes may be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">determined</span> (as pure phenomena) without being <span style="text-decoration: underline;">determinable</span> (involving an observer and predictability).</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p></p>
</blockquote>